Senators Want To Punish Nokia, Siemens Over Iran 392
fast66 writes "After hearing about Nokia-Siemens sale of Internet-monitoring software to Iran, US Senators Schumer and Graham want to bar them from receiving federal contracts. They planned the action after hearing about a joint venture of Nokia Corp. of Finland and Siemens AG of Germany that sold a sophisticated Internet-monitoring system to Iran in 2008. According to Nextgov.com, Schumer and Graham's bill would require the Obama administration to identify foreign companies that export sensitive technology to Iran and ban them from bidding on federal contracts, or renew expiring ones, unless they first stop exports to Iran."
Because Cisco would never do such a thing (Score:5, Insightful)
This is bull shit. Cisco sold the same type of stuff to China.
This is just more bullshit for the U.S. government to work around trade agreements they've signed in the past.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't hate the idea but why not let everyone decide individually if they want to boycott these companies?
Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing (Score:5, Insightful)
The bill doesn't ban them from doing business IN the United States,
It bans them from doing WITH the United States Government.
In other words, as a unit, the Government would be boycotting these companies.
I do agree with the double-standard; however, The Chinese Communist Party has been far more accepting of gradual loosening and openness than has the Iranian Mullahs. Engagement does work, if the organization you are attempting to engage with is a rational actor.
Re: (Score:2)
the [Chinese] Party's ideals are not driven by religion - fundamentalist or otherwise.
Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. Open trade and relations with the chinese works because their govt is corrupt because it just wants power and riches and will do whatever it can to balance the two against it's citizens whether that's another tianmen or largely letting them live their lives in peace if not actual freedom.
Iran on the other hand literally believes that god himself demands they maim and/or kill anything standing in the path of their aims of nuclear genocide and creating a wahhabist world and nothing you do or say is ever going to change that unshakeable belief that the most important thing is to kill or convert as many nonbelievers as possible.
In short you can convince someone whose a greedy asshole to give you a lightbulb so EVERYONE in the room can see. You can't convince the guy chewing on pieces of his own face in the corner not to try and rearrange your insides when the voices tell him to.
Re: (Score:2)
All free countries want power and wealth. China just beat us by figuring how to have everything both ways.
Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing (Score:4, Insightful)
The ironic thing in the present situation of Iran is that western media is portraying the Mousavi guy as a reformer when he openly calls for returning to the teachings of Khomeini!?!. He should know about that since he was prime-minister (a position which no longer exists in Iran) in the 80's, coincidentally, when the worst attrocities of this awful regime were being committed. What were those attrocities? Murdering liberals, socialists, communists and seculars in general in their thousands all over the country, beginning in universities.
Tne funny thing is that even with such a despicable regime, Iran never invaded or bombed any other country to "the stone age" as many commentators say. On the other hand, Iran was invaded by Saddam Hussein who was doing US's bidding.
If you want to talk about crazy people hearing voices in their head, Iran appears to be the most "reasonable" place in the wretched Middle East. It is (with Israel) the only country in the region were election results even though rigged in several ways are not known in advance. Hell, it is one of the few places were there are elections!
If the US wants to "bring democracy to the middle east", it should be simple: start with US allies such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan or Egypt. At least they would certainly hear what the US has to say. But I have a feeling that isn't really the objective.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the reason it won't work.
Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing (Score:5, Informative)
About as stupid as these senators apparently. I mean really....
Siemens, not bidding on federal contracts?
Bwaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaahaaaaaaaaahahhaahhahahaa
uh huh mmmmmmmmmmmmmm
my side hurts now. Maybe these senators don't realize, but either directly or indirectly, you'd be hard pressed to find a federal contract that didn't support Siemens somehow. They're a $120 billion a year company making a gazillion little gadgets most senators never heard of, used in everthing from bulldozers to fire alarms.
This is all political bullshit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But government is evil.
Yeah right on man! Feudal warlords rule! Somalia is paradise. This government of the people by the people and for the people crap that those fucktard founding fathers came up with ... just pure evil.
Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing (Score:4, Informative)
The Senators don't appear to be proposing a total ban on these companies, simply a ban on them bidding for government contracts. If you want to, you can still buy their products, but I don't see a problem with a government ban. I just wish it were more evenly applied so that companies selling such technology to any regime that is going to use it to violate essential liberties is blocked from bidding on government contracts.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing (Score:5, Informative)
That is bullshit [nokiasiemensnetworks.com] (forgive linking to a press release, but Nokia Siemens Networks doesn't even make equipment as described).
It looks like Nokia Siemens sold exactly the things which the USA forced them to include in their system and nothing more. Most of the legal interception requirements have been driven by the US in the first place.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I think this is also because Nokia sold more than net limiting technology. Apparently they also sold devices which pick up the EMR's emitted by cell phones which allowed police to home in on any person who has a phone on their person - especially to those who are making calls/texting/transmitting data. To my knowledge such technology is not in use in China (currently).
You are incorrect in your assumption about China. My employer sells exactly that sort of product to them.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
[citation fucking needed]
Seriously, an Anonymous Coward who doesn't even mention the company by name.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need a device made by a major corporation to do that. All you need is a basic book on radio theory - easily purchased or pirated - you've got the know how for an EMR detector.
I imagine, a simple mod to a cell phone would even work.
Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing (Score:5, Informative)
I think this is also because Nokia sold more than net limiting technology. Apparently they also sold devices which pick up the EMR's emitted by cell phones which allowed police to home in on any person who has a phone on their person - especially to those who are making calls/texting/transmitting data. To my knowledge such technology is not in use in China (currently).
This is bog-standard technology implemented in any modern network. It's used by 911-operators to home in on your location if you are unable to speak (or cut off) and used by police to follow suspects (in addition to a GPS-Tracker in the car). There's nothing specialy made for repressive regimes; it's just technology which also may be used to suppress people.
Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing (Score:4, Insightful)
And by your logic, you should ban yourself
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
China does not threaten to bomb israel or destabilize iraq.
None of the politicians mentioned that this economic protectionism was religious based or had anything to do with nuclear warfare. Though China is a very dangerous military threat to India and is a police threat to its own citizens.
And from the article:
Nokia Siemens said in a statement that the equipment it provided to Telecommunications Co. of Iran, the country's fixed and mobile network operator, is designed only to conduct lawful intercept of traffic by law enforcement organizations.
Unlike in America, where the government and the phone companies can monitor all traffic without legal requirements.
This hypocrisy is just people being bad and lying out loud about it.
Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing (Score:5, Insightful)
So basically, this is the US trying to force foreign companies into executing the US political agenda.
Isreal in it's current form is criminal and cruel and the US did more to destabilize Iraq than Iran ever has. But of course those opinions are counter to the US world, so flag waving morons will refuse to accept them as valid.
Some senators want to punish a couple of non US companies for selling technology to a country that the US prevents it's own from selling technology to? I hope that Nokia and Siemens ignore them. It looks like another case of US selective policing, and the rest of world is sick of that shit.
I don't agree with Iranian goverment internet censorship, but not for knee jerk "they are the bad guys" reasons, because I know all to well from recent history that the USA are the badder guys. The USA has negative moral authority. Even with the new administration, you guys have a lot of work to do.
I really hope Nokia and Siemens say "shove it".
References to US and USA refer to government/politics, not necessarily you, the people.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Additionally, I am not saying that it was right for the US to go into Iraq in the first pla
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I would have to disagree with you regarding Israel. Israel is only acting in self determination after numerous incursions by Hamas, a group funded by Iran.
Agreed. And Hamas is only acting in self determination after numerous incursions by Israel, which is funded by the US.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That you say "War of Independance" was 5 nations attacking without provocation is scary. What planet in the Propaganda system is that from? Isreal's whole existence as a place for European Jews to go, even though they are not even descended from Isrealites, by force and against the will of any non Jews in the region is pretty serious provocation.
The country was started by state sponsored terrorists. It is a democracy only as much as is necessary to maintain US support, and only really for the Jews in practi
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Allowing a religious extremist terrorist philosophy like zionism to succeed is always going to be a recepe for conflict.
If you're aiming for a quality flamebait, at least get your definitions right. Zionism was originally a secular ideology, and the majority still remains such. On the other hand, quite a few Orthodox Jews oppose Zionism [wikipedia.org] specifically on religious grounds.
I don't see what's extremist about Zionism either. It's really just healthy nationalism - the belief that Jews must have a state of their own. How is this extremist in and of itself (I don't claim that there aren't any specific extremist Zionist strains)?
What's the latest position? That Hamas must accept Isreal as a Jewish state?
I be
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Allowing a religious extremist terrorist philosophy like zionism to succeed is always going to be a recepe for conflict. If you're aiming for a quality flamebait, at least get your definitions right. Zionism was originally a secular ideology, and the majority still remains such. On the other hand, quite a few Orthodox Jews oppose Zionism [wikipedia.org] specifically on religious grounds. I don't see what's extremist about Zionism either. It's really just healthy nationalism - the belief that Jews must have a state of their own. How is this extremist in and of itself (I don't claim that there aren't any specific extremist Zionist strains)?
Zionism is its original form as formulated by Theodor Herzl was pragmatic and not at all religious as it then turned out. He thought that the solution to the persecution of Jews in Europe was to form a homeland for them somewhere in the world. The keyword is "somewhere," some of the proposed homelands where in Madagaskar, Argentina and Siberia. None of those ideas had any traction because you can't just ask a scattered people to go to some random place on earth and start a new land. The idea is laughable.
It
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
More Russians died in gas chambers than Jews, but Isreal and supporters bang on about it as if the Jews were the only victims. Sure Isreal isn't rounding them up and gassing them, but I would pick life in a ghetto as Jew before the gas chambers over life in Gaza as a Palestinian.
The first statement isn't true, and I doubt you even mean the second. Russians had very high war casualties and many died in camps (including Jewish Russians), but they weren't tortured and executed by their own societies like animals. Palestinians are mistreated, but they aren't dropping dead in the streets from starvation and disease, and it is not yet considered socially acceptable to kill them at will.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but they invaded Tibet and are in the proscess of cultural genocide.
Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing (Score:5, Insightful)
And Google and Bing and Yahoo! have all cooperated with China (and other chronic human rights abusers) by censoring their search results.
I guess the U.S. government is just going to have to fall back to using Altavista [altavista.com] for a search engine. Don't forget their motto: "Over one million pages indexed!"
Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing (Score:5, Funny)
Google is an American country
I just woke up from a nap.. what did I miss?
Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing (Score:5, Funny)
Well, let's see:
- Google buying out California after the latter going bankrupt; and also Texas filing their 5th petition to be purchased again, which was predictably turned down by Their Imperial Majesties Sergey I and Lawrence I
- President of the Persian Democratic Republic of Iran proposing stronger economic sanctions against the Emirate of the British Isles and Northern Europe, after the latter executed another three juvenile offenders for adultery by stoning.
- A port of DN4E to Microsoft GNU/Hurd (Microsoft's CEO, Richard M. Stallman, demoed it last month)
Re: (Score:2)
This is bull shit. Cisco sold the same type of stuff to China.
Is it really such simple hypocrisy? I know that hypocrisy is the universal language of politicians, but weren't there were hearings on the matter of Cisco selling tools of oppression to China? I recall that documents were presented at the hearings showing that those tools weren't just marketed as simple tools but specifically as a means to help the government to oppress the people.
Ah yes, just entering "cisco china hearings" net this as the top item:
http://www.hunterstrat.com/news/microsoft-cisco-snub-con [hunterstrat.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hell no! The minute they pass that, they'll use it to throw out the 2nd amendment somehow.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, now, be gentle to them. It might be just ignorance, living in a bubble.
They've learned about the properties of standard Nokia & Siemens telecommunications equipment from the news. They probably not even know what "Cisco" is, nevermind that it's a US company.
Re: (Score:2)
This is just more bullshit for the U.S. government to work around trade agreements they've signed in the past.
What trade agreements? The US was given China temporary Most Favored Trade Status 1990 and made permanent in 2001 during the Bush Administration. Conversely, the US maintains trade sanctions against Iran and does not even have diplomatic relations with Iran and has not since 1980. So I ask again, what trade agreements?
Re: (Score:2)
Nokia isn't Iranian, nor is it Chinese. They are a Finish company. I've no idea if the US has any trade agreements with Finland.
Re: (Score:2)
China is a controlled export country.
Iran is an embargoed country.
Legally, there is a big difference between the two.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
China is a controlled export country.
Iran is an embargoed country.
Legally, there is a big difference between the two.
Legally, sure. It's simple to create laws to justify or prohibit anything. Legally, a torturer who works for the CIA is a upstanding patriotic citizen, while a torturer who works for Al Quaida is a terrorist and should be killed. Legally, when China executes people to harvest organs, it's unfortunate, while when Germany killed people doing medical experiments on them, it was a crime agains
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it a coincidence that we're talking about a European conglomerate? Would they dare to propose something similar if Cisco was found to be selling such stuff?
I can sell you mustard ingredients to use it on your sausages. You shouldn't blame me if you gas your kids with it though....
Re:Turnabout is fair play. (Score:5, Funny)
I warned Europeans on this board that protectionism was coming with a Northern Democrat sweep... but oh no
Yep - damn those Europeans for voting Obama in.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yep - damn those Europeans for voting Obama in.
IF they could have, they would have. Obama's ratings in Europe were in the 90% range, at the same time he was in Ohio talking about how he was going to undo free trade. Says a lot about how informed Europeans -really- are.
Bush may not have been the style of guy that Europe prefers, but economically, his commitment to free trade made it possible for many European economies to be export driven. Obama will begin the unwinding of that.
Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the EU is doing its work, and fining companies who abuse their monopoly.
http://www.sortedsites.info/general-stuff/eu-fine-telefonica.htm [sortedsites.info]
(Which, in case you were wondering is an European company)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=aasUT7jU_bd8 [bloomberg.com]
(Also European)
It doesn't matter what country your company is from, if you abuse the rules, they go after you. They might even go after all those bank bailouts:
http://www.reuters.com/article/dealAtoms/idUS391610202420090605 [reuters.com]
Selling to the NSA is good but Iran is bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless you're in Iran in which case it's the other way around. Or since neither of these companies are US based companies do we have to decide if the EU likes the US today before they can negotiate contracts?
Re:Selling to the NSA is good but Iran is bad (Score:5, Funny)
Is a multinational company that's based outside the US but happens to do business here an "us" or a "them"? I lost my scorecard and can't figure it out anymore.
As a side note, evidently the equipment sent to Iran is standard telephone switching equipment with digital wiretap capabilities - the same hardware mandated by the US & most other governments.
Yes that makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Internet monitoring equipment should only be allowed to be sold in "free" countries, like the US... er...
fucking hacks, both of them (Score:5, Insightful)
Where's the blockage of federal contracts to AT&T for spying on American citizens? U.S. officials have a complete lack of self-awareness [salon.com] on issues like spying, detention & torture:
It's only fascist when they do it (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the same equipment they sell to the US, UK and others [nokiasiemensnetworks.com], and they're in compliance with UN and EU regulations. Why is it suddenly evil and deserving of punishment when another government decides to use it?
THIS IS THE ONLY RELEVANT POST SO FAR (Score:5, Informative)
- It's a piece of standard 3GPP (=GSM) equipment for lawful intercept, i.e. to allow law enforcement to wiretap calls (according guidelines set by local law).
- It only handles voice calls and does not allow internet traffic monitoring, let alone deep packet inspection.
- The equipment is compliant with EU and UN export regulations
Also, it's much less of a privacy threat than the mechanisms currently in place in US, UK (and I'm sure EU).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Iraq?
Oh, that's right, foreigners aren't human.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings/ [wikipedia.org], a while ago, but the regiem hasn't changed. Got more corrupt.
free markets a bitch aint it? (Score:2, Insightful)
the hypocrisy boggles the mind
meanwhile (Score:2, Funny)
Well.. (Score:2, Funny)
...I'm glad to see Republicans standing up the tyranny of the increasingly repressive American Gov...wait....
---
I guarantee you these are the same people who want to restrict freedom of information to protect the children here in the USA.
Don't be so quick to defend the corporations. (Score:4, Insightful)
As far as I'm concerned, multinational corporations deserve this and have done so for a long time.
They are crying foul that by selling the tools of oppression to one government, they jeopardize their chances to sell their wares to another.
That's not hypocrisy on behalf of the governments. That's just politics.
And they do have a choice to avoid this - by staying out of that market.
No one forced them to sell systems to allow oppressive regimes to track and crack down on dissidents. They came up with that product all by themselves. And they most certainly would have been aware of what their product was going to be used for.
If all they sold was phones and phone systems, they wouldn't be in this mess, so I really don't see a problem with the US Government deciding that if Nokia supports it's political enemies, that it shouldn't benefit from US government contracts.
Corporate pariahs's deserve to be treated as such.
I don't like what the US government is doing itself in the area of human rights abuse, but I have to admit that I support it on this matter.
GrpA
Re:Don't be so quick to defend the corporations. (Score:5, Interesting)
What about selling to non-oppressive regimes? These systems, and similar ones by Cisco, Alcatel-Lucent, Narus [wikipedia.org] and others are in widespread use throughout the U.S., Europe and the rest of the "free world".
Been there, installed that.
Hell, I know of one system that uses a MySQL database to store the warrant and tap info. The interface is an Apache module. The front end is rather ugly closed source GUI written in Israel which sends the info via an HTTPS POST.
Narus' key products were based on Snort and Wireshark, just on custom super-computer class hardware.
Gotta love FOSS. With all the hacking tools available for Linux/BSD, including source code, who needs custom code?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. These tools are designed to ensure privacy and you'd be hard pressed to find a use for them to "suppress" a people.
There are a lot of tools designed to test -- and break -- security. They have tons of valid uses. The idea that countries like Iran, Burma and China can't get their hands on the same tools the U.S. and Western nations use for "legitimate law enforcement" simply because Congress says "don't sell to the bad guys" is laughable. It assumes no nation in the world is going to resell t
Re: (Score:2)
There is no such thing as a non-oppressive regime. All political regimes are inherently oppressive by their very nature.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, they do have to provide this technology if they want to sell mobile phone network equipment at all. There's a mandatory "lawful intercept" capability that you have to implement if you want to get the gear licensed. That goes for US, UK and EU as well as "axis of evil" countries.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and I'm well aware of this requirement, more than most people.
However it's one thing to meet this requirement within the required laws of the host country and another thing entirely to provide and market software and devices that actively enhance human rights abuse through these laws.
The latter might be something the "client" government desires, but that doesn't excuse the actions of the corporations who chase this business through provision of such systems.
If Nokia and others persist in creating Braz [wikipedia.org]
Oh I see (Score:3, Interesting)
Speaking up in favor of protestors is seen as meddling but sending out a strong signal that if you sell anything hi tech to Iran your stuff will be shunned by the U.S. will have no impact whatsoever.
The horse may have left the barn, but if we nuke the barn from orbit we can be sure no future horses will even be born. Or something like that.
Godwin's Law (Score:4, Interesting)
IBM, allegedly, collaborated with the Nazis.
Corporations making a quick buck through trading with 'the enemy' is nothing new.
Re:Godwin's Law (Score:4, Insightful)
Yea, so did George Bush's grandfather:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar [guardian.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Whoa, buddy. That's just ancestral indiscretion. It's not like GW Bush or his father helped start wars that conveniently profited themselves and their friends.
Wait a second...
Re: (Score:2)
So did Siemens [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Ford as well.
Uncompetitive Country (Score:2, Informative)
and in Germany? (Score:5, Interesting)
So, now that we here in Germany have introduced Internet censorship (via the crazy Zensursula von der Leyen law, your choice whether "crazy" applies to the law or the person) - will the US senators punish the companies that supply the infrastructure for that as well?
Oh wait, Germany isn't a "rogue country", right? We don't go by facts, we go by political climate, don't we?
I'm looking forward to an embargo...
Re: (Score:3)
Usually the U.S.A. only decides to use economic sanctions when censorship is being used for I(negative) political purposes.
They use sanctions to try and obtain the political result they want.. For example trying to stop nuclear research.. Censorship, like it or not, is each countries own business.. and in fact you can say the same for the individual states in the US..
You know what is strange ?.. There are people (not saying you, so don't freak), that on the one hand want everyone to be the same and live t
Ok (Score:2)
Two choices (Score:2)
"Four feet good! Two feet bad!" (Animal Farm) (Score:3, Interesting)
As far as I have heard Nokia and Siemens did just sell the same technology they are forced by the "good countries" to implement already for years. So what is the problem?!
Power to the people! (Score:2)
Heaven forbid (Score:5, Informative)
selling weapons is fine (Score:2)
what about the scores of US companies that have sold and are selling weapons to Iran, to other hostile, dictatorial and oppressive regimes and to third world counties. WTF! In my book that is much worse than what Siemens and Nokia did. Oh, but these are not US companies.... so that makes it alright then. Hypocrits.
Read your bible every day, dear senators! (Score:5, Interesting)
Matt 7:3
For those not wanting to bother, it's the part about beams in your eye and splinters in that of another one.
Hey, I just want to give them something they can understand, considering how many politicians ride on God and his will into the house, I'd say they should know the good book, eh?
OK, snideness aside. Do you think this is about "freedom of speech" or similar bullcrap? It's about power. It's the attempt to dictate to foreign companies what they may or may not sell. Neither Siemens nor Nokia is a US company. It's simply an attempt to find out whether those companies rely heavily enough on US government contracts to actually bend over to US government's will.
And that's the shameful part. IF it was about free speech, I'd be very happy for such a bold and outright good move. Similar actions taken in the US lead me to the conclusion that this is not the case. Else, why care for the splinter in someone else's eye?
Re: (Score:2)
Most of our current presumed enemies were either armed by the Soviets and Chinese (North Korea), or developed their own military industries by initially illegally copying from the Soviets and/or the US (China, Iran). Venezuela is modernizing using largely Russian technology, and has been trying to figure out how to get rid of its F-16s to US enemies without violating transfer agreements. Most of the rest (primarily terrorist or insurgent groups) use weapons that are either stolen from wherever they can fi
Re:First uncensored post (Score:5, Insightful)
Off topic? More like insightful.
Senators want to punish Iran for placing fetters on freedom of speech and democracy? First do something about the NSA running around like the Stasi, the FBI running around like the Gestapo and the TSA from running around like nosy nannies with clubs. Then sort out the "Free Speech Zone" debacle. Then sort out the PATRIOT Act. Then sort out the US government's working on ACTA treaties that are secret.
Maybe then they can get all high-horsey about freedom in other parts of the world. Until then, calling Iran "unfree" is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Re:First uncensored post (Score:5, Interesting)
Accepting abuses of human rights in other countries is still a bad thing, even if your own government is abusing those very same rights.
If you don't stand against it openly, even if it is hypocritical to do so patriotically, then there's no reason for those within your own country to desist from their own actions.
After all, ignoring another country's abuses just because your own country does likewise is even worse than hypocrisy. It's complicity.
GrpA
Re:First uncensored post (Score:5, Insightful)
I think what's annoying is just the stupid grandstanding. They are fine with the EXACT same usage in the US, as the gov't now can arbitrarily declare anybody an enemy combatant, arrest them, hold them indefinitely without charge, and even then transport them out of the country. It's not like congress was briefed on the NSA wiretapping and did something about it. And it's not like ALL internet traffic goes through the NSA's computers (now, whether they can actually do DPI on it all in realtime...).
But, when the people we have hired to watch our police forces don't bother doing it (I mean really, the FBI doesn't know how many NSL's they have issued OR where all of them went to HAS to be willful incompetence after this many years), and we keep re-hiring them, it's really our problem. We know there's a problem, but not enough people are willing to get together to be able to fix it.
Re:First uncensored post (Score:4, Insightful)
We know there's a problem, but not enough people are willing to get together to be able to fix it.
That's because it doesn't seem to affect their daily routines.
The main issue is not always whether the current executive powers are trustworthy. It is about putting in place mechanisms that would allow future (would be) dictators to take tight control. Even failed attempts can have nasty effects.
Yesterday I watched an interview [bbc.co.uk]with the former head of the British counter terrorism operations. They see the immediate threat, but not the side effects of eroding democratic liberties. Scary. Probably with all the best intentions. Very scary.
Re:First uncensored post (Score:4, Insightful)
Many in the USA subscribe to a theory of American exceptionalism. They do this consciously or unconsciously. The theory is pretty simple: when America does something, it's OK. This is in line with "If the President does it, then it's not illegal." So when Americans are waterboarded, it's torture and a war crime. When the same thing is done by Americans, it's part of the war on terror, and a policy issue that shouldn't be criminalized. Sure, the participants and those authorizing the harsh interrogation techniques (euphemism has risen to new heights these days) circumvented legal frameworks, but they're not criminals no matter what they did. We need to look forward, not backward.
Re:First uncensored post (Score:4, Informative)
That is not what American Exceptionalism is about. "American exceptionalism refers to the theory that the United States occupies a special niche among developed nations in terms of its national credo, historical evolution, political and religious institutions and unique origins." - American Exceptionalism [wikipedia.org].
The idea of Nixon-style exceptionalism (a priori exceptionalism as discussed in the Wikipedia entry) is held only by a few, and often thrown out as a strawman, like you just did. You can disagree with the notion all you like, just don't distort the expressed views of those who do.
Condemnation of Iran's actions and punishment of Nokia and Siemens for sanction violations makes sense. Iran is using this technology to directly curb free expression. None of the U.S. government entities mentioned in this discussion do that. They may listen in, but they aren't turning around and cracking skulls as a follow up. Saying that the NSA and FBI are somehow equivalent to Iran's government and militia is ridiculous.
Americans get waterboarded more often by other American soldiers as part of their training regimen. Is that torture? Should their instructors be thrown into jail for giving them this training? There was no circumvention of legal frameworks, the three people who were waterboarded were done so within the framework of the law. Change the laws, but don't be dishonest about the ones we have. (And no, I'm not claiming the waterboarding was "right" because we did it.) Also, remember that the treatment American soldiers and civilians already get from the enemy includes real torture (stabbing, cutting, twisting limbs until dislocation or until they break, and beheading).
Re:First uncensored post (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't stand against it openly, even if it is hypocritical to do so patriotically, then there's no reason for those within your own country to desist from their own actions.
No.
If you denounce it abroad, while not doing anything about it at home, then there's no reason for anyone to believe you're being sincere, and therefore you are actually saying it's a good thing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:First uncensored post (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, I remember when people went out to protest and were hacked to death by axes, wielded by the National Guard. It was horrible.
I would say that it's more like someone going into an emergency room with a paper cut and whining about how someone who has just been raped, thrown out of a car at 55mph, run over, lit on fire, then hacked up with machetes is getting treated first.
Re:First uncensored post (Score:5, Informative)
The US has an embargo on Iran and Nokia Siemens broke it.
Nokia Siemens is a joint venture with its headquarters in Finland. The two contributing companies are Nokia, who were founded and are headed in Finland and Siemens were founded and are headed in Germany. The United States of America set an embargo on the country and yet all others are expected to follow - this is what's wrong with the American outlook.
I'm just glad I've been able to buy Cuban cigars legally in my country all along.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Expected to follow? No...
Treated differently depending on whether or not they do follow? Yes, that's pretty much the definition of "embargo".
If the US were threatening to prosecute the company or its principals for daring to break the embargo, then you might have a point. That's a very different thing from saying "ok, if you won't honor our refusal to do business with Iran, then we also won't do business with you".
You're basically saying that the US is somehow obligated to provide postiive support (in th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For once (and I'm not American), I find this response from the USA government very reasonable. They are not barring Nokia to do business with companies on the USA. They are not prosecuting them. They are just saying: "if you want to do business with ME, you have to play by my rules".
Even if all the other points raised here are valid (things the USA do etc), the response itself is a different matter.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:First uncensored post (Score:5, Informative)
- Military goods of any kind
- Services relating to maintenance, preparation, production or use of military goods
- Just about anything related to nuclear weapons or ballistic missiles
I just read through the damn thing (151 pages in the German version) and software is only covered where it is used for the design, operation or maintenance of nuclear enrichment facilities or military weapons, especially guided missiles. Unless I overlooked something (unlikely as the appendices are simple tables) or the embargo is covered by an additional regulation I am not aware of Nokia and Siemens did not violate the embargo.
The morality of providing filtering technology to Iran aside, I just can't see what the States are trying to accomplish here. They try to punish companies from other countries for something that wasn't illegal at the time. In the best case we have an ex post facto situation with jurisdictional issues, in the worst case we have "screw the rules, we want your money".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The US has an embargo on Iran and Nokia Siemens broke it.
Oh? I missed the news then. When did the US annexed Germany and Finland?
Re:First uncensored post (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh? I missed the news then. When did the US annexed Germany and Finland?
They didn't that's why the action is hey we won't be buying your shit rather than, hey we're fining the fuck out of you. Really, this is such a non-story. During economic crisis, country uses fuzzy logic to exclude foreign manufacture over domestic one. Fire still hot, water still wet. Just wait for the appearance of the Blue Eagle [wikipedia.org] before you start getting too indignant.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My point is you can't break an embargo if you do not fall under the jurisdiction that called for it.
And what you're failing to notice is that this is a non-point.
While they did not technically do anything wrong, they still pissed off the people with the purse strings.
Were they morally wrong? Probably, but business is business. Ethically, they're in the clear.
Does this mean the Senate is forced to look favorably on it? Of course not. They still have power over their own budget rules whether the companies at hand are Swiss, German, South African, or even American. THAT is the part you're failing to gra
Re: (Score:2)
You know, it wasn't tanks and bombers that brought down the Iron Curtain. It was blue jeans and rock'n'roll. Western consumer society may be easy to sneer at, but in the long run it's proven to be one of the most powerful forces for liberalization the world has ever known.
As a practical matter, if we try to cut off exports to Iran, I guaran-goddamn-tee you the Iranian government will still get its hands on all the goodies it needs, but the Iranian people will be SOL, and any chance they have of freeing th
Re: (Score:2)
Uh no, it wasn't blue jeans and Beatles tapes, it was the United States bankrupting the USSR. Containment was an incredibly expensive policy for the West, but in the end, the USSR could not compete, and we sure the hell weren't exporting advanced electronics to them (though they ripped plenty off).